dSLR suggestions

This covers most of what I was thinking of, but I'll add my own emphasis:
In-Body Image Stab/Shake Reduction said:
The advantage with moving the image sensor, instead of the lens, is that the image will be stabilized regardless of what lens is being used. This allows the stabilization to work with any lens the photographer chooses and reduces the weight and complexity of the lenses.(but increases the weight, complexity, and cost of the camera body) The price value is often seen in the ability to buy lower cost lenses from makers like Tamron and Sigma and still have stabilized images. There are popular lens types that have no in lens stabilization option where sensor based stabilization can be very useful. This also allows one to use old manual lenses with this stabilization feature.

One of the primary disadvantages of moving the image sensor itself is that the image projected to the viewfinder is not stabilized. However, this is not an issue on cameras that use an electronic viewfinder (EVF), since the image projected on that viewfinder is taken from the image sensor itself.(Are there any true dSLRs made with EVF, ie. if they have EVF they likely aren't SLR's anymore.)

Another disadvantage of moving the sensor instead of the lens is that only the main imaging sensor is moved, but the autofocus sensor is not moved. This means that camera shake can lower the performance of the autofocus system in bad light.(the primary reason to have shake reduction in the first place and a likely reason Nikon and Canon put it in the lens and not the camera body.) This is an issue only with DSLRs which have a dedicated phase-detection autofocus sensor (most dSLR's made today use phase detection for AF), not an issue with smaller cameras which use the main sensor for contrast-detection autofocus.

The last technical issue is one of available working space. An in-the-camera-body system is limited in how much shake it can compensate for.

So overall in-the-camera shake reduction makes more technical sense for P&S cameras than it does for dSLR's.

Ultimately, good camera handeling technique and a smooth shutter release finger action trumps image stab/shake reduction.
 
This covers most of what I was thinking of, but I'll add my own emphasis:
In-Body Image Stab/Shake Reduction said:
The advantage with moving the image sensor, instead of the lens, is that the image will be stabilized regardless of what lens is being used. This allows the stabilization to work with any lens the photographer chooses and reduces the weight and complexity of the lenses.(but increases the weight, complexity, and cost of the camera body) The price value is often seen in the ability to buy lower cost lenses from makers like Tamron and Sigma and still have stabilized images. There are popular lens types that have no in lens stabilization option where sensor based stabilization can be very useful. This also allows one to use old manual lenses with this stabilization feature.

One of the primary disadvantages of moving the image sensor itself is that the image projected to the viewfinder is not stabilized. However, this is not an issue on cameras that use an electronic viewfinder (EVF), since the image projected on that viewfinder is taken from the image sensor itself.(Are there any true dSLRs made with EVF, ie. if they have EVF they likely aren't SLR's anymore.)

Another disadvantage of moving the sensor instead of the lens is that only the main imaging sensor is moved, but the autofocus sensor is not moved. This means that camera shake can lower the performance of the autofocus system in bad light.(the primary reason to have shake reduction in the first place and a likely reason Nikon and Canon put it in the lens and not the camera body.) This is an issue only with DSLRs which have a dedicated phase-detection autofocus sensor (most dSLR's made today use phase detection for AF), not an issue with smaller cameras which use the main sensor for contrast-detection autofocus.

The last technical issue is one of available working space. An in-the-camera-body system is limited in how much shake it can compensate for.

So overall in-the-camera shake reduction makes more technical sense for P&S cameras than it does for dSLR's.

Ultimately, good camera handeling technique and a smooth shutter release finger action trumps image stab/shake reduction.

Ah, I understand what you're saying. It makes sense and I totally agree with the last statement.

Thanks! :mrgreen:
 
Also, although some lenses don't offer very good IS (cheaper ones, at least) some of them can offer *VASTLY* superior IS performance compared to the in-body versions. Some of them can offer up to *4 full stop* IS performance which no in-body version can possibly hope to do.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top